Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Wani (No. 1) [2025] PGNC 436; N11577 (7 November 2025)

N11577

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 487 OF 2025

STATE

V

JACOB WANI
(NO 1)

GOROKA: WAWUN-KUVI J
6, 7 NOVEMBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW- TRIAL- Armed Robbery, s 386(1)(2)(a)(b) Criminal Code- Involvement and participation- Whether accused robbed the complainant?

Cases cited
Ikalom v The State (2019) SC1888
Andrew v State [2009] PGSC 21; SC997
Kitawal v State [2007] PGSC 44; SC927
Devlyn David v The State (2005) SC881
State v Tom Morris [1981] PNGLR 493
Paulus Pawa v The State [1981] PNGLR 498
State v Kissip [2020] PGNC 17; N8184

Counsel
P Matana & E Nema-Kale for the State
C Bomai & E Mapio for the accused

1. BY THE COURT: Between 14 and 15 April 2024, the State alleged that the accused, under the pretext of a legitimate hire car arrangement, lured the unsuspecting complainant from Goroka to Banz, where he was held up and robbed of his motor vehicle, cash, and a Samsung mobile phone. He was indicted on one count of armed robbery under s 386 (1)(2) (a)(b) of the Criminal Code. Section 7 (1)(a)(b)(c) of the Criminal Code was invoked to join him to his accomplices.
   
2. At the outset, the State bears the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt and disproving any defences properly raised on the evidence also beyond a reasonable doubt.
   
3. The State called the complainant and tendered the following documents by consent:
   • Record of Interview in pidgin 4 pages- S1
   • English translation-S2
   • The police indemnity receipt-S3
   • The MVIL insurance policy certificate-S4
   • The Ela Motor official receipt-S5
     
4. There is no dispute on the ownership of the vehicle and that the complainant and the accused were together in the vehicle travelling from Goroka to Banz. There is no further dispute that the complainant was robbed of his motor vehicle, his cash, and his Samsung mobile phone. There is no dispute that the complainant and the accused were together during the robbery.
   
5. The only question for determination is whether the accused was involved and participated in the robbery.
   
6. The complainant provided evidence that he was at the Henganofi bus stop here in Goroka. He was approached by the accused, who wanted to hire his bus. He said that he would think about it. He obtained the accused's phone number. After consulting with his wife, he contacted the accused and informed him to go over to his house. He gave directions to his house. The accused was with him, and his wife cooked some food. They then left for Banz. He was directed to the CLTC instead of the lodge as first informed. They parked in a dark area when the accused said he had to relieve himself. While they were at that location, armed men came out and held him up. The accused obtained a gun and instructed one of the robbers to drive. The accused removed his cash and phone. He and his bus crew were assaulted. They placed them in the back of the bus. They used their clothes to blindfold them. It was not tight, so he could still see. After some distance, the blindfolds were removed. The accused and the men demanded his bank card and PIN number. He wanted to lie but was afraid for his life; he gave them the PIN. They were driven to Banz, where the men attempted to withdraw money from the card unsuccessfully. They were then driven to Mt Hagen. There, the men were able to withdraw money from the ATM. They could no longer withdraw money from the ATMs. He assumed that the withdrawal limit on the card must have been reached. The men then drove them around and used the card at the hotels and guest houses. They were taken back to Banz and left at the back of CLTC. The vehicle was driven off by Jacob Wani and his accomplices. He recovered his vehicle three months later. He had contacts in the Southern Highlands who sighted the accused and reported the sighting to the police. He then went to the Southern Highlands when the accused was apprehended. Upon questioning by the police, the accused stated that the vehicle was in Tari. The accused had sold it to a school principal. They went to Tari with the accused to retrieve the vehicle. Once the vehicle was retrieved, they returned to Mendi and later to Goroka, where the accused was charged.
   
7. The accused version is that he met with the driver of the bus to arrange for a hire. The complainant then called him to his house to make payment. He made the payment, but later the hire was cancelled. He asked for the money back, but the complainant said he had used the money already. He then got on with the complainant, and they went to pick up passengers. Along the way, they bought alcohol and drank. Somewhere between Jiwaka and Banz, the complainant said he wanted to relieve himself. He went outside while the accused sat in the vehicle. The passengers also went outside. He then realised that it was a robbery. The passengers robbed them. His properties were removed, and he was told to run. He does not know how the complainant was robbed. He did not see the vehicle again. He was arrested because he placed a complaint and had learnt of the vehicle’s location. When he was with the police and called, the complainant told the police that he was involved, and he was arrested.
   
8. It is now a question of who to believe.
   
9. The evidence of the complainant was straight forward, coherent and clear. He did not seek to exaggerate his answers in cross examination. Having observed the accused, his demeanour, his tone and the general way he gave his account demonstrated to me that he was not a witness of truth.
   
10. His version of the hire being cancelled, that he was given K100 by the complainant, that the complainant refused to return the K700, that he drank alcohol in the vehicle with the complainant, that the complainant went out to relieve himself, that it was the passengers who held them up including himself, that he was told to run and that he left and did not see the complainant and the bus again were not available in the Record of Interview and were not put to the complainant when the complainant gave evidence. This is a clear breach of the rule in Brown v Dunn (1879) R (HL) elaborated by the Supreme Court in Kitawal v State [2007] PGSC 44; SC927. The consequence of it which I find, is that his version is a recent invention and has very little weight.
    
11. There was no suggestion and is nothing in the evidence that shows that there was an ulterior motive behind the complainant making the allegations against the accused. His evidence was not discredited. No inconsistences were suggested by defence counsel, and I cannot identify any significant inconsistencies in the evidence that would discredit the complainant’s account. As said earlier his evidence was straight forward. I therefore prefer the version by the complainant over the accused.
    
12. The next question is whether the State has established the elements of the charge.
    
13. The offence of robbery is found under s 386 of the Criminal Code and the definition of robbery is found under s 384 of the Criminal Code. The elements as such are:
    1. A person
    2. Who steals anything
    3. Immediately before or after, the time of stealing threatens or uses actual violence to any person or property in order to obtain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to it being stolen
14. The definition of stealing is found under ss 364 and 365 of the Criminal Code. The elements of stealing are therefore:
    
    1. the thing the subject of the charge is a thing capable of being stolen (as defined in s. 364 of the Criminal Code), that is:
       1. an inanimate thing that:
          • (a) is the property of any person; and
          • (b) moveable;
    2. and that the accused:
       1. fraudulently;
       2. takes the thing, or converts it to his own use or the use of any other person; and
       3. actually, moves or otherwise deals with the thing by some physical act.
          
15. For discussions on what constitutes stealing see State v Kissip [2020] PGNC 17; N8184 following Ikalom v The State (2019) SC1888.
16. Under s 386 (2) of the Criminal Code a robbery is in circumstances of aggravation if any of the following occur before, during or immediately after the robbery:
    

1. if the person is armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon on instrument;

2. is in company with one or more other persons or

3. at, immediately before or immediately after, the time of the robbery, wounds or uses any other personal violence to any person.
   
17. Here, the accused was not a mere bystander or a person who was also being robbed. He was seen acquiring a gun by the complainant. He directed one of the robbers to drive the vehicle. He took the complainant’s cash monies and mobile phone. He demanded the complainant’s card and PIN. He was with the others in the vehicle were the complainant and his bus crew were driven around Banz and Mt Hagen. They dropped them off again at Banz and took off with the motor vehicle. He led the police and complainant to Tari to identify the person who bought the vehicle.
    
18. While the State’s case is not wholly circumstantial, I am satisfied that the phone calls made by the accused during the travel between Goroka and Banz were between the accused and his accomplices. The law on circumstantial evidence as enunciated in State v Tom Morris [1981] PNGLR 493 adopted in Paulus Pawa v The State [1981] PNGLR 498 and subsequent Supreme Court cases including Devlyn David v The State (2005) SC881 and Andrew v State [2009] PGSC 21; SC997, is that there must be only one reasonable inference or that the proven facts lead to only one conclusion, being, the guilt of the accused.
    
19. Here, while the complainant accepted that he did not understand what the accused was saying in the vehicle because the accused was speaking his language, there is no other inference that can be drawn from the proven facts other than he was communicating with his accomplices. This was because he gave the directions to the location where armed men lay in wait and immediately took charge of his accomplices and was involved in a significant part in the robbery.
    
20. Based on the foregoing proven facts, I find that the State has proven the elements of armed robbery under s 386 (1)(2)(a)(b) of the Criminal Code.
    
21. A verdict of guilty is returned on the charge as indicted.

Orders

22. The Orders of the Court are:
    1. The accused having been charged with one count of Armed Robbery under s 386(1)(2)(a)(b) of the Criminal Code is found guilty.
       2. The Court requests a Pre Sentence Report, Means Assessment Report and a Victim Impact Statement to be prepared and filed by the 27 November 2025 for the purposes of sentencing the offender.
       3. The offender is remanded in custody.
       4. The matter is adjourned to 3 December 2025 at 9.30 am for submissions on sentence.
          

Lawyer for the State: Acting Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the accused: Public Solicitor